Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed lots of new abortion restrictions this year. One of them was a law prohibiting health insurance companies in that state from covering abortion in comprehensive plans unless the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life. In other words, no exceptions for a woman's health or for victims of rape or incest.
Otherwise, under the new law, the only way abortion can be covered in Kansas is if women purchase a special abortion insurance rider that would be tacked on to their regular insurance policy for an additional cost.
But Kari Ann Rinker, the state coordinator for NOW, apart from objecting to the idea that women would have to purchase separate abortion-only insurance in the first place, says she has discovered that some insurance carriers (including hers) won't even be offering the riders described in the new law.
I called my insurance company only to find out that my insurance company will not offer an abortion rider for my insurance plan. There is now no way for me to obtain coverage within my insurance company for this legal, medical procedure. This is a direct result of the law. Quite simply, this law inserts politicians into health care, which results in bad health policy for all.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit, challenging the law today. Rinker, as an ACLU member, says she has joined the suit and is blogging about it today at RH Reality Check.
(BTW - those of you keeping track at home might remember Kari Ann Rinker from our trip to Kansas back in February -- that video is after the jump).
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Leave a Comment:
This saddens, but doesn't surprise, me. It's more of the Repub's attack on the lower classes. What this new round of laws is saying is that, if you have money and can pay for it, abortions are available to you. If, however, your pockets are not so deeply lined and you actually need *gasp* insurance to help pay for your medical expenses, then you're out of luck. Just like education, you're only entitled to it if you can afford it. Welcome to the Middle Ages, when only the wealthy could afford to be educated and healthy.
Which does bring up a curiosity about government efficacy, no? If the idea is to reduce those dependent on government aid then why put into place laws that will directly contribute to the supply of those very same people? It seems interesting to me, especially, considering that many far right politicos will argue that it is the Democratic Party who insists on making people into welfare "victims" (as they would see it).
The GOP wants less gov't involvement -- right? -- particularly in healthcare decisions. (Insert screams about "death panels" and "medical gatekeeping" here.)
If they were canny, they would ask insurance carriers to ban all elective surgeries, in order to bring down premiums without sacrificing coverage for medically necessary treatment. (This would be true, technically, but covered abortions are a statistical nullity in terms of their effect on premium.) Altogether vile.
So somebody's going to have to define what "elective" surgery is. I spend 4 unnecessary days in agony, in the hospital, waiting to have my 0% functioning gall bladder removed because it was "elective" and other more important surgeries were triaged ahead of me. Meanwhile the $$$ kept running up. The insurance, medical, drug companies are in bed with Congress. Ya think we don't already have a form of socialized medicine in this country? What a stupid law.
For everyone that stayed home in 2010, please make sure to GOTV for 2012.
I still don't understand how the GOP chants of smaller government fall in line with taking away my rights. With each and every chip, I grow more and more angry. The Republicans really have become a mean-spirited and hateful lot.
"Smaller government" essentially means, "don't do things that I don't expect to benefit me." Add this to the great majority who don't think of themselves as being the recipients of government programs -- even while drawing Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and agricultural subsidies.
Sort of like "keep your government off of my Medicare!"
So glad to see others that feel the same way I do.
kricka, mean spirited and hateful indeed, and anti-equality. Not only anti-abortion (holier than thou) but anti-gay too (not THEIR choice! as if it was a choice)
When will all those christian versions of Sharia Laws be purged?
Some food for thought: Most financial and industrial growth has occurred during periods of higher(much higher) taxation. Investors look mostly at EBIT( Earnings Before Interest and Taxes).------ If you accept Perry's Jobs story, doesn't this prove that job growth occurred in spite of all the Government interference he complains about. Must be a reflection against his fellow governors rather than the U.S. Government. How many of Texas Jobs are related to the many Military Installations in Texas. Also, other U.S. Gov. Agencies.------Not by way of criticism. but did the Bachmans receive government aid for their foster home care?
Tell Gov. Perry to read Mathew, Chapter 25, verses 31 through the end of the Chapter to learn what Jesus said about a Nation's responsibility to our disadvantaged citizens. Lawrence O'Donnell suggested this to Rush L. Good Advice.
Condolences to Lawrence, Respectfully, John Brady
Also how many of those jobs in Texas are min wage or lower?
You've got to love rethugnikans and their version of "small government"!
Abortion is a tough subject. Take me for example. I'm a politically active Progressive. I believe abortion should be legal. I think they should be largely limited to the first trimester. I wish there were hundreds of thousands LESS of them each year and that we were better as a society at preventing unwanted pregnancies. But I'm not sure I want Federal money used to pay for them. With my chunk of those tax dollars I'd much rather pay for free unlimited birth control and prevention programs. I also don't want insurance to cover Viagra, or Cialis, or Levitra, or that BS drug that makes your eyelashes grow. Covering those things just makes insurance more expensive for everyone. Insurance should cover illness, disease, and other non-optional things. I believe we need to take a hard look at what the government spends money on, and reduce the money we spend on things like Viagra.
John, the article isn't about Federally funded abortions. It's about a *state* government telling *private* health insurance companies they *can't* cover abortions, except with a special rider.
Why is it that people don't understad the purpose of insurance? You have the right to walk into any hospital and ask for treatment.
Just pay 10,000$ and you'll have coverage in emergency situations only! If it's a non emergency then please try a charity
Bill
Actually with insurance especially if it's a HMO (like me) you don't have the right to walk into any hospital and ask for treatment. Only the hospital, urgent care or doctor a person's health insurance will cover. I have a young friend (who I watch grow up) lost her fiancee very recently because he couldn't just go into any hospital for treatment. I am talking about a young man in his 20s who is dead because of that.
I too have had a very hard time getting treatment for a broken foot because of limitations from my health insurance. The health insurance system is a sham in this country because of what private insurance companies can determine what is covered and where it is covered. I am still waiting for approval for a metatarsal pad for my foot and I injured my foot in May!
By the way: Who was complaining about health decisions should be made by doctors and patients and not by bureaucrats? Yeah right ... the tea baggers. I guess they must be really pissed when they heard the Republicans also support big government interventions into personal freedoms. Right?
Politicians and politics have no place in my medical decisions or in my discussions with my doctor. These laws (which have been intruding on my life for the past 40+ years no matter which party was pushing its agenda) are an insult to all women.
My wish is that politicians get out of our medical decisions, which are made with our doctors, who are way more knowledgeable of our medical care. I am tired of having people imposing abortions on me or trying to take abortions away. When women stand against the WHOLE problem of intrusions in our medical care -instead of taking sides on the abortion issue - we might be able to express enmass the rage we feel being treated like we don't know enough to make our own decisions.
Politicians have been involved in our (women's) healthcare for decades. My wish is that we finally become so outraged that we finally get to kick them out of our medical lives and out of our doctor's offices. It's always about someone trying to take away the option of abortion or someone imposing the option of abortion. That is not a politicians decision (no matter which party is pushing its agenda) - it is a medical and personal decision.